J.V. Agarwal v. ITO

257 CTR 112High Court2013#17417 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,252 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 131(1)sanctioning authorityfirst proviso to section 147tangible materialunexplained investmentescapement of incomereason to believereopening of assessmentsection 131genuineness of the transactionscrutiny assessmentsection 139(1)

Judgments citing J.V. Agarwal v. ITO

Tara Raju Patel, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Surat

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 195/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Raju Maganlal Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Auspp 1436 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Tara Raju Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Avdpp 6714 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

…ion of facts. To support such submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nivi Trading Ltd. Vs Union of India (2015) 375 ITR 308 (Bom) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in J.V. Agarwal Vs ITO (2013) 257 CTR 112 (Guj). The ld. AR of the assessee reiterated that mere verification of cash deposit cannot be reasons of reopening. The Assessing Officer claimed about service of notice under Section 148 of the Act in India on 05/04/2018 is disputed on the ground that the assessee is not residing in India in the month of April, 2018. The assessee has not authori…

Shri Raju Maganlal Patel, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, Int. Taxation, Surat

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 188/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Raju Maganlal Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Auspp 1436 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Tara Raju Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Avdpp 6714 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

…ion of facts. To support such submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nivi Trading Ltd. Vs Union of India (2015) 375 ITR 308 (Bom) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in J.V. Agarwal Vs ITO (2013) 257 CTR 112 (Guj). The ld. AR of the assessee reiterated that mere verification of cash deposit cannot be reasons of reopening. The Assessing Officer claimed about service of notice under Section 148 of the Act in India on 05/04/2018 is disputed on the ground that the assessee is not residing in India in the month of April, 2018. The assessee has not authori…

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Girishkumar M. Puruswani, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 407/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…resorted for verification of facts. Ld. AR had drawn my attention to the relevant decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nivi Trading Ltd. vs. UOI (2015) 375 ITR 308 (Bom) and Hon'ble Gujarat High CW in the case of J. V. Agarwal vs. ITO (2013) 257 CTR 112 (Gujarat) to consolidate his argument that desire to verify the cash deposits cannot be reason to reopen the assessment. 5.7 The provisions of Section 147 requires that the assessing officer should have reason to believe that income has escaped the assessment and then only, he can issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act. On careful consideration, I agre…

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Girishkumar M. Puruswani, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 406/RJT/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…resorted for verification of facts. Ld. AR had drawn my attention to the relevant decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nivi Trading Ltd. vs. UOI (2015) 375 ITR 308 (Bom) and Hon'ble Gujarat High CW in the case of J. V. Agarwal vs. ITO (2013) 257 CTR 112 (Gujarat) to consolidate his argument that desire to verify the cash deposits cannot be reason to reopen the assessment. 5.7 The provisions of Section 147 requires that the assessing officer should have reason to believe that income has escaped the assessment and then only, he can issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act. On careful consideration, I agre…

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Girishkumar M. Puruswani, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 405/RJT/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…resorted for verification of facts. Ld. AR had drawn my attention to the relevant decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nivi Trading Ltd. vs. UOI (2015) 375 ITR 308 (Bom) and Hon'ble Gujarat High CW in the case of J. V. Agarwal vs. ITO (2013) 257 CTR 112 (Gujarat) to consolidate his argument that desire to verify the cash deposits cannot be reason to reopen the assessment. 5.7 The provisions of Section 147 requires that the assessing officer should have reason to believe that income has escaped the assessment and then only, he can issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act. On careful consideration, I agre…

J.V. Agarwal v. ITO (257 CTR 112) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax